Essay --

In Iris Murdochs Morality and theology the precedent, an face novelist, makes many principles that authors ordure either agree with or disagree. She talks about holiness and religion and the philosophy behind the two. Murdochs main argument is whether in that respect can be morality without religion. She asserts her view of morality and religion by defining religion, explaining the differences amid the two while questioning both, and analyzing virtue and duty. By study and contrasting morality and religion she makes her view ambivalent and complex therefore letting her readers decide whether or not religion is necessary for morality. sequence more or less writers extend Murdochs claims other writers like Aristotle complicate her view of religion and morality.Iris Murdoch starts her argument by stating that there is only adept stylus to take over religion and that is through being taught it as a small child (363). She sees religion as something that can only be attained when unmatched is a child. She then claims that mountain who take up religion as adults are merely playing at it (Murdoch 363). By stating this, the question of whether there can be morality without religion comes into mind. If religion is needed to fuck off morals and religion can only be attained as children that would mean that adults who werent increase religious outweart have morals since they are only playing at it. But if religion doesnt define whether people have morals then that shows how religion isnt necessary for someone to be moral. Murdoch is basically stating that people who take up religion as adults dont truly know the meaning of faith and religion yet that doesnt necessarily mean they dont have any morals. A writer that complicates Murdochs claim is Basil Mitchell, autho... ...iveness is important to religion and it is the duty of people to forgive in religion therefore there is a blood between both. Murdoch separates religion and duty but Lauritzen complic ates her view by explaining how duty comes from religion and forgiveness is an example of that.In Iris Murdochs Morality and holiness the author questions whether or not religion is necessary for morality. She is very ambivalent with her answer as she explains the similarities and differences between morality and religion but never specifically choosing one side. Many writers extend and complicate Murdochs arguments but only for readers to get a better apprehending of both concepts. This is significant because it helps readers better understand morality and religion and they can decide for themselves whether religion is necessary for morality or if morality is just natural. Essay -- In Iris Murdochs Morality and Religion the author, an English novelist, makes many arguments that writers can either agree with or disagree. She talks about morality and religion and the philosophy behind the two. Murdochs main argument is whether there can be morality without religion. She asserts her view of morality and religion by defining religion, explaining the differences between the two while questioning both, and analyzing virtue and duty. By comparing and contrasting morality and religion she makes her view ambivalent and complex therefore letting her readers decide whether or not religion is necessary for morality. While some writers extend Murdochs claims other writers like Aristotle complicate her view of religion and morality.Iris Murdoch starts her argument by stating that there is only one way to acquire religion and that is through being taught it as a small child (363). She sees religion as something that can only be attained when one is a child. She then claims that people who take up religion as adults are merely playing at it (Murdoch 363). By stating this, the question of whether there can be morality without religion comes into mind. If religion is needed to have morals and religion can only be attained as children that would mean that adult s who werent raised religious dont have morals since they are only playing at it. But if religion doesnt define whether people have morals then that shows how religion isnt necessary for someone to be moral. Murdoch is basically stating that people who take up religion as adults dont truly know the meaning of faith and religion yet that doesnt necessarily mean they dont have any morals. A writer that complicates Murdochs claim is Basil Mitchell, autho... ...iveness is important to religion and it is the duty of people to forgive in religion therefore there is a relationship between both. Murdoch separates religion and duty but Lauritzen complicates her view by explaining how duty comes from religion and forgiveness is an example of that.In Iris Murdochs Morality and Religion the author questions whether or not religion is necessary for morality. She is very ambivalent with her answer as she explains the similarities and differences between morality and religion but never specifical ly choosing one side. Many writers extend and complicate Murdochs arguments but only for readers to get a better understanding of both concepts. This is significant because it helps readers better understand morality and religion and they can decide for themselves whether religion is necessary for morality or if morality is just natural.